Can High Courts Reappraise Court Martial Findings and Punishments Imposed by the Armed Forces Tribunal?

HC Affirms Limits of AFT Review, Upholds Court Martial Sentence and Restricts Reappraisal of Evidence

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• AFT orders can be challenged under Article 226 post-Parashotam Dass.
• High Courts may not reappraise Court Martial evidence except where findings are perverse or natural justice is breached (Major A. Hussain).
• Charges arising from the same wrongful act must be treated consistently; an appellate forum cannot prove one but negate the other without legal basis.
• Conversion of dismissal to discharge with pension exceeds the AFT’s power where the statutory sentence is lawful and proportionate.
• Absence of procedural infirmities in Court Martial proceedings mandates upholding both findings and sentence as final.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Maintainability of Writ
   Relying on Union of India and Others v. Parashotam Dass, the Court held that High Courts can entertain writ petitions against AFT orders under Article 226.
2. Scope of Judicial Review
   Following Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, judicial review of Court Martial is confined to examining procedural irregularities or perverse findings. Re-weighing of evidence by the AFT amounts to judicial overreach.
3. Consistency of Findings
   Both Section 55B (inaccurate certificate) and Section 60(a) (knowingly false document) charges stemmed from the same Inspection Note and evidence. The AFT’s acceptance of one and rejection of the other was internally inconsistent and legally untenable.
4. Statutory Sentencing Limits
   Sections 81–82 of the Navy Act prescribe dismissal and imprisonment as permissible punishments. The Court Martial’s sentence of dismissal fell within the statutory scale and was proportionate to the misconduct.
5. Appellate Jurisdiction of AFT
   The AFT’s power to mitigate or commute sentences does not extend to substituting its own appraisal of facts absent perverse findings or irregular trial. Conversion of dismissal into discharge with pension contravened the statutory punishment framework.
6. Conclusion
   The High Court quashed the AFT order, affirmed the Court Martial findings and sentence, and denied pensionary benefits.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (Secretary to MoD & Others)

• The Court Martial complied strictly with the Navy Act and regulations; full opportunity was accorded to the respondent to defend and cross-examine.
• Evidence (testimony of PWs 3, 4, 6, 7; Exhibits P5–P12) proved unauthorized and false certification by the respondent.
• Both charges arise from the same act—signing a false Inspection Note—and were proven beyond reasonable doubt; AFT’s contrary finding on Section 60(a) was flawed.
• Judicial review does not permit the AFT to reappraise facts, per Union of India v. Major A. Hussain.
• Dismissal was within the statutory punishment scale and proportionate; conversion to discharge with pension sends the wrong signal regarding military discipline.

Respondent (Ex MCEAA II Amit Dhull)

• The AFT’s order is final under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, and the petition is time-barred and non-maintainable.
• He acted under orders of his superior (PW7); lacked dishonest intent and had no knowledge that the items were previously rejected.
• Court Martial proceedings suffered pre-trial and trial infirmities: key witnesses were not examined; command influence compromised impartiality.
• The sentence of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and violated the doctrine of proportionality under Article 14.
• The petitioners filed a vexatious writ to undermine the rehabilitative intent of the AFT’s order.

Factual Background

Ex MCEAA II Amit Dhull, a senior naval artificer, was directed to inspect Sea Harrier aircraft spares that had been declared unsatisfactory by a user trial at Kochi. Without authority or actual inspection, he signed and stamped an Inspection Note dated 02.09.2011 certifying the rejected items as serviceable. Court Martial convicted him under Sections 55B and 60(a) of the Navy Act, 1957, and dismissed him on 10.09.2014. On appeal, the Armed Forces Tribunal converted dismissal into discharge with pensionary benefits. The Secretary to the Ministry of Defence filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the AFT’s order. The High Court quashed the tribunal’s order, upheld the original dismissal, and denied pension.

Statutory Analysis

Navy Act, 1957

• Section 55B: Criminalizes signing a certificate relating to aircraft material without ensuring accuracy (punishable up to 2 years).
• Section 60(a): Penalizes knowingly making or signing a false official document (punishable up to 7 years).
• Sections 81–82: Enumerate permissible punishments, including dismissal with or without disgrace, and prescribe proportionality and sentencing limits.

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007

• Section 14: Confers High Court–like jurisdiction on the AFT for service matters.
• Section 15: Grants AFT appellate powers over Court Martial orders, subject to limitations on substituting findings.
• Sections 16–17: Provide for retrial, enhancement, mitigation, and procedural powers but do not allow reappraisal of facts absent perverse findings.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Major A. Hussain on limited review of Court Martial.
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Parashotam Dass on writ jurisdiction over AFT.
• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – High Court reverses AFT’s reappraisal of identical charges.

Citations

• Union of India v. Major A. Hussain, (1998) 1 SCC 537
• Union of India and Others v. Parashotam Dass, Order dated 21.03.2023
• Preetipal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2386
• W.P.No.33446/2024; CNR HCMA011988802024 (Madras High Court, delivered 18.08.2025)